Contents
Shri Sankara's Gita Bhashya
(Sri Sankaracharya's Commentary on the Gita)
CHAPTER -5
|
|
Objection - Is it not that, in the passages quoted above, the Lord has taught renunciation of all action, with the intention of establishing devotion to jñāna - yoga as the duty of him who has known (the truth about) the Self, and not of him who has not known the Self? Therefore, inasmuch as performance of action and renunciation thereof relate to different classes of persons, the question aimed at learning what is the more commendable of the two is irrelevant. Reply - True: from the point of view set out by you, the question is irrelevant. But, we say that it is quite relevant from the point of view of the questioner himself. Objection - How? Reply - Since, in the passages quoted above, renunciation of action is taught by the Lord as a duty to be engaged in, it is more important (than the agent), and without an agent it cannot become an object to be accomplished; therefore, the injunction (to renounce action) covers even the person who has not known the Self and who can be the agent (of the act of renunciation) from this standpoint. And, moreover, renunciation of action has not been prescribed as fit to be undertaken only by persons who have known the Self[1]. Arjuna, thus thinks that there is competence for the person who has not known the Self, both with regard to the performance of action as well as to the renuncia tion thereof; and, because of their mutual opposition in the manner already stated, it being evident that only one of them - that one which is more commendable, and not the other - should be engaged in, his question aimed at learning the more commendable course is not irrelevant. That the view of the questioner is as stated above can be arrived at by an investigation of the import of the (Lord's) reply as well. |
 |
References and Context
- ↑ The argument here is based on the principles of (Pūrva or Karma) Mimamsa. The Mimāmsakas hold that a single proposition can embody only a single injunction; otherwise there would be the fallacy of a double precept in a single proposition (vakya-hfo'da). An injunction such as ,"One desirous of heaven should sacrifice", prescribes sacrifice for the person desiring heaven; but it does not authorise only him, to the exclusion of others, to perform it. So also, Hie injunction about renunciation should be extended so as to apply to that person also who has not known the Self; and it cannot be restricted as apply ing to the knower of the Self alone. Renunciation is (elsewhere) enjoined even on the man who has not known the Self, when he is full of vairāgya (in difference to worldly concerns). Therefore, there can be competence on the part of the man who has not known the Self, both as to performance of action as well as renuncation of action; and hence Arjuna's question is proper. (Anandagiri's gloss elaborated).